The federal deficit surged nearly 25 percent in August to reach $753 billion through the first 11 months of the fiscal year, but the Congressional Budget Office said Monday it expects the final year-end total to be lower.

In August alone, the government ran a $146 billion deficit, pushing this year's total up by nearly 25 percent in just one month. But CBO analysts said the picture will look somewhat better in September, the final month of the fiscal year, which will produce a surplus and drive the deficit lower.

So the Moonies' headline - and yours, trollmitter - are entirely disingenuous?

Spending, meanwhile, is down $127 billion, and if that trend continues through next month it will mark the second straight year the government spent less than the previous year. The last time that happened was 1954 and 1955.

A major drop in spending came on defense programs, which the CBO said was due both to the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and to the budget sequesters, which hit the military particularly hard.

The biggest drop, though, was to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which actually returned about $82 billion to the federal government, and didn't receive any payments from taxpayers.

So once again they're trying to push a narrative that's completely counter to reality?

House Republicans have scheduled votes this week on a stopgap measure that would continue 2013 funding levels, but they are fighting a rebellion within their own ranks over what to do about the president's health care law.

A number of Republicans have called on the House to include language defunding the law altogether, forcing Mr. Obama to choose between scrapping his signature achievement or risking a government shutdown.

Its called "August", federal deficit (not debt) jumps by about 25% in August every damn year. http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdfIn 05 and 06 is jumped by about 1/4th of the budget, in 07 it jumped by 50%, 28% in 2008.In 2009-2011 it jumped by smaller percents because the deficit was already so damn high, we had no net positive income for any months making august seem tame in comparison.

stpickrell:So it's not even year-over-year, which is usually the best comparison for a lot of this data?

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdfArticle said $146B for Aug 2013 so that would make it about 24% less than the $190B for last year, though still slightly above a typical August. September numbers are often positive when we have a big August, it depends upon how the spending was actually done. If you want historial trends you'd be best averaging 3 month periods.

Of course August probably looks crappy. September is the end of the US fiscal year, and the end of the third quarter for the CY. Lots of people/businesses pay taxes quarterly and won't pay them in August since they're not due yet.

Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.

super_grass:Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.

We could, but it's more important that we let the retards get ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, HAKUNA, NO clicks and maybe allow their retardation to die the death of no ad revenue through education campaigns here on Fark and everywhere where reason is valued. That is what the world really needs. Why can't you be a hero too?

BMFPitt:Just as with the surplus months that were celebrated here on Fark, I will reiterate how meaningless the monthly numbers are.

Correct, however, we are trending down which is very good news. The biggest issue is if we can sustain this trend. If we stop at 5.5% for deficit/GDP, we are in some serious trouble. If we can get that down to 2.5% to 3.5% AND KEEP IT THERE, then we should be in decent shape.

super_grass:Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.

Quick question: do you think the annual federal deficit has gone up or down under Obama?

Dwight_Yeast:Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect. Seems to be a pretty factual article. I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.

HeadLever:Dwight_Yeast: Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect. Seems to be a pretty factual article. I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.

/I don't mind discussing TPM or KOS articles.

Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest. This is a non-story dressed up to get ignorant folk riled up. Once that's been pointed out, there's nothing left to discuss.

HeadLever:ZoeNekros: Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest.

Misleading how? Deficit increased in August by 25%. Seems to be pretty straightforward to me. You may not like it but it is a fact.

Omissions? They seem to do a good job explaining the trends and past deficits. Didn't see where they omitted anything. What would you have them add that they didn't?

Yes. Totally misleading. If they wanted to do a "good job" they would compare this august to LAST AUGUST or chart yearly fluctuations in the deficit over years. Instead they just said "derp!" It's almost as if someone was reading every piece of boring shiat the CBO puts out, found an interesting number out of context and wrote an Obama Hit piece around it.

fatassbastard:super_grass: Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.

Quick question: do you think the annual federal deficit has gone up or down under Obama?

HeadLever:Dwight_Yeast: Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect. Seems to be a pretty factual article. I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.